Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parental controls aren't for parents

beasthacker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 476 posts

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#211

Post by squibonpig »

BeetleB wrote: post #174
alembic_fumes wrote: post #69

This pervasive desire to block, protect, monitor, and control your children's online activities through nebulous supervision tools seems like a particularly American solution to a particularly American problem. Much like how little Timmy simply can't go out to play without a GPS anklet and an air tag behind each ear, so too can't he go online without a supervised account on a supervised device on a supervised connect…

Because I want a device for my kids to play games. Not communicate. Not buy stuff. Just play (local) games. Stuff like online communications will come at a later age. Absolutely no reason to start explaining that to a 5 year old. And absolutely no reason to have all 3 bundled in one. > Take an earnest interest in your child's activities, both online and offline. Guide them how to behave in strange, even weird and sca…

Gun ownership isn't a terrible example honestly. I would have been probably 8 or so when I was allowed to traipse around in the woods near my dad's house with a BB gun, following extensive safety teaching of course. We would go out in the yard and shoot a shotgun and a rifle around that same age. People are probably not careful enough with guns right now in America given the stats, but it's not at all unreasonable in a rural context for a relatively young kid to be trusted with use of a firearm, even for short unsupervised periods. The real thing that a parent has to do (beyond still waiting until an appropriate age) is to extensively drill in the safety habits and proper use and know their kid well enough to determine whether they're ready for that responsibility.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#212

Post by mikestew »

mothballed wrote: post #113
cevn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were loose with a gun at age 7?!

Absolutely, I would also walk down the public roads also to get from one field to another, nobody said anything. It was quite normal in the rural Midwest. You'll probably find lots of true stories online as well about kids arriving to school and checking their rifle with the principal at the beginning of class and then getting them back at the end of the day.

Check the gun with the principal?! No, you leave it on the gun rack in the back of the pickup, and lock the truck door like normal people at my high school. :-)

(Also rural Midwest, and a long time ago).

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#213

Post by baq »

mothballed wrote: post #82
mjg2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Parents in the 21st century need to realize the call is coming from inside the house: it's their obligation to protect their child. Unsupervised usage without full due-diligence will lead to incidents like what the blog author describes. The dilemma of online protection is a false crisis because parents would rather let their children play with fire than nurture their babies.

It's the parents obligation to educate their child. It's the child's obligation to use that education wisely. There were no trackers on cars when I started driving at 15 so my parents drove with me for a few months and after that I was on my own. There were no gun laws against kids having guns when I was 7 so my dad showed me how to use one safely and after that I was set loose upon the countryside armed on my own. T…

Laws disagree. Parents are at least in some cases legally and financially responsible for their children doings. Parental controls are necessary for children who don't want to or cannot control themselves regardless of the level of education they receive.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#214

Post by andrewaylett »

Ukv wrote: post #133
vorpalhex wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the kid wants to play a game with his friends. So that is "online" in the sense that it uses the internet.. but it isn't the same as a web browser, or an open store of every online app. I run game servers for my nephew. I know he only adds his friends and I can keep a loose eye on them. I don't care if his friends talk about boobs or make penis jokes (they're 14), I only care that there aren't any p…

> The issue is that the kid wants to play a game with his friends [...] This is a clear and meaningful distinction and it doesn't sound supported. Clear how it could restrict to friends-only when connecting directly to another Nintendo Switch user, but a bit murky how it'd make that determination in cases like Minecraft where the client is connecting to a cross-platform user-hosted game server that is not associated…

Specifically for Minecraft, Realms works for this: I subscribe, I allow my children and friends to access our instance via gamer tag.

Users on the same network can access each others' worlds, at least between XBox and Android, so multi-device in the same building works too.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#215

Post by Bluecobra »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #38
Angostura wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My daughter will not get a phone at all until she's at least 16 and probably finally actually needs one. It’s all fine and dandy, until (i) you find that they’ve actually just saved up their pocket money and gifts for the last year and a half to buy the phone (age 11 in my daughter’s case) and that all the after school and weekend activities are being arranged on phones. Seeing your kids excluded from real-world ac…

I had a cell phone before my parents. Paid cash for a TracFone when I was 16 or 17 and used that to sell weed. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Heh. When I was in high school, cell phones and pagers were banned based on the assumption that only drug dealers could afford them.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#216

Post by swivelmaster »

Here's what I think is happening:

Market research says "Parents want control."

In the journey from CEO mandate "build a product that gives parents control" to developer implementation, "parents want control" somehow turns into "What parents want is extremely fine-grained controls," which isn't the same thing.

So a bunch of product managers brainstorm a huge list of ways that parents might want "control," hand that off to some developers, and voila: Everything becomes way too complicated for everybody and the company is able to say they offer "control" while abdicating their stated obligation of giving parents the "safe" product that the parents expect.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#217

Post by Bratmon »

> And when I finally—finally—tried to test online play, Minecraft told me I would need to loosen the parental controls (it did not say which) and create a Nintendo Switch Online account for my son.

I'm a bit confused by this section. It seems to me that the author

1. Turned off online.

2. Bought a game that could be played in single-player or online

3. Got mad that online didn't work because it was turned off

4. Turned online back on

5. Got mad that online was turned on.

6. Dealt with this anger by yelling at his children

I actually don't understand what the author was trying to accomplish here

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#218

Post by SkyPuncher »

mystraline wrote: post #141
mjg2 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With due respect, this comment conveys a position of privilege and surviver's bias. I, like you, eschewed online rules as a minor and I luckily benefitted from this time in my expertise. I was lucky. I didn't run into predators when using TF2, Runescape, or MySpace, but that doesn't mean the threat wasn't validated on with persons (children at the time) that fell through the cracks. The story outlined, one of a child…

In reality, the whole "stranger danger" is way overblown and always has been. Most of the time, sexual predators are going to be either family or friends. https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/... 93% of victims under 18 know their abuser. Sure there's 7% thats not, but a significant supermajority is family/friends. 59% were acquaintances, and 34% are family. Edit: seriously, -1 cause I link to…

Keep in mind, this study is only physical sexual abuse.

Internet has opened up an entire world of virtual sexual abuse.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#219

Post by SkyPuncher »

Angostura wrote: post #27
jameskilton wrote: post #9

My daughter will not get a phone at all until she's at least 16 and probably finally actually needs one. As for the Switch and Nintendo Online, I didn't find it confusing or difficult at all to set up a child's account, make sure they can't buy anything without my permission, and then I make sure my daughter knows what she can and can't do, and I keep an eye on it to make sure she follows my rules. I don't trust pare…

> My daughter will not get a phone at all until she's at least 16 and probably finally actually needs one. It’s all fine and dandy, until (i) you find that they’ve actually just saved up their pocket money and gifts for the last year and a half to buy the phone (age 11 in my daughter’s case) and that all the after school and weekend activities are being arranged on phones. Seeing your kids excluded from real-world ac…

Yep. Even 20 years ago, phones were basically necessary to have a social life in high school. It’s where everything got planned.

Re: Parental controls aren't for parents

#220

Post by SkyPuncher »

Someone1234 wrote: post #43
nicoburns wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents did the no phone until 16 rule, and it was awful. Completely cut me off socially.

The "socially" part is the problem though. A lot of bullying occurs via those social media platforms that teenagers are using.

Social media is not the same thing as social communication.
Post reply on HN